Oh man, this is classic.  Many people have watched Gretchen Carlson on Fox & Friends and wondered how can she be so dumb.  Alex Koppelman at Salon:

Like many of her colleagues on Fox, Carlson often plays dumb. In her case, that means looking up words like “ignoramus” and “czar,” or at least pretending to in order to score some points against liberals — and look anti-intellectual in the process.

Turns out, Gretchen was her high school valedictorian, graduated with honors from Stanford, studied at Oxford and is a talented classically-trained violinist.  Jon Stewart called her out on the absurdity of her ‘troubled mom trying to figure out this confusing modern world’ act:

Aaron Barnhart at the Kansas City Star was unkind in his assessment of the larger ruse of which Gretchen is only a small part:

The rule they always tell you in show business is be yourself, right? But not in conservative populist talk radio and TV. Look, I have no problem with conservatives being themselves. Bill O’Reilly and Dr. Laura and El Rushbo and (of course) Saint Paul Harvey all became huge in radio because radio values authenticity, and their essence bled through every second that they were on the air.

But it seems for every Billo these days there are three people like Carlson, Glenn Beck and Steve Doocy — people who probably have some Republican in them but are simply (and obviously) overplaying to the right wing because they know it sells.

George Will must be turning over in his grave.  Buckley, too.  Once a hallowed voice of conservative thought, the Wall Street Journal has been Fox Newsified as everyone feared would happen when News Corp. bought it in 2007.  Exhibit A:

A special committee was established to oversee The Journal’s editorial integrity. But after the managing editor, Marcus Brauchli resigned on April 22, 2008, the committee said that he resigned under pressure, and that News Corporation had violated its agreement by not notifying the committee earlier.  Brauchli said that he thought it was reasonable that new owners would appoint their own editor.

However, a June 5 Journal news story quoted charges that Murdoch had made and broken similar promises in the past. One large shareholder commented that Murdoch has long “expressed his personal, political and business biases through his newspapers and television stations.” Journalist Fred Emery, formerly of the British newspaper The Times, recounted an incident when Murdoch was reminded of his own earlier promises not to fire The Times’ editors without independent directors’ approval and allegedly responded, “God, you don’t take all that seriously, do you?”

Exhibit B:  Of all discredited people to opine about what the health care reform bill says, they chose Betsy “Death Panel” McCaughey (photo, above right).  She’s hardly Grade A conservative thought about one of our country’s most pressing issues; more former prom queen than Dow policy analyst.  What, were all the fellows at the American Enterprise Institute tied up?

McCaughey – a laughing stock after she continually couldn’t find her facts in the bill on The Daily Show — is now a regular Wall Street Journal columnist about health care reform.  She seems like a sweet lady, but this spectacle must make her children blush (video below):

McCaughey’s turn to be questioned was embarrassing as she kept flipping through the bill, unable to find the facts she was basing her arguments upon.  Women everywhere cringed.

She is the one who started the death panel rumor, the topic in the clip above that she couldn’t support.  McCaughey (pronounced “McCoy”) is a follower of faith-based facts; she is of a new class that discuss facts that can’t be evidenced.  It only takes a belief that the fact is there, even when it’s not.  Just like when someone believes the Earth is only 2,000 years old.  On the WSJ editorial page, they now feature the flat earthers of our national discourse.  Bravo, Journal.

A former insitution is officially Fox Newsified.

Both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert’s talents lie in their ability to use intelligence and physical comedy to show they are the masters in the craft.  Whether you agree with their politics or not, what they do can be done by few others.

So Thursday night’s Glenn Beck parody by Jon Stewart was extended, and was without doubt the most biting piece of satire I have seen since Colbert’s White House Correspondent’s Dinner send-up of Bush and the media.  It is more than a parody of Glenn Beck; it’s a parody of textbook demagogy with a slight-of-hand as the sermonizing is about Beck’s health, since he was off the air from appendicitis.  Six minutes in, the humor melts away and as spot-on and brilliant is Stewart’s impression, it’s not funny in the end.

See it to believe it (video below):

In related news, the Onion News Network reported that a victim in a fatal car accident was tragically not Glenn Beck:

Victim In Fatal Car Accident Tragically Not Glenn Beck

The Dork. Bow tie free since 2006.

Not for nothing, bow ties are much derided.  Tucker Carlson was famous for two things: wearing a bow tie, and getting spanked on-air by Jon Stewart, which he has never gotten over.

Right before the 2004 Presidential election,  Stewart’s glorious grilling of how cable news shows like Carlson’s now defunct Crossfire are theater–not news analysis–that hurt the country, is arguably his finest moment to date.  Stewart called Carlson’s bow tie little more than a prop:

PAUL BEGALA: We’re 30 minutes in a 24-hour day where we have each side on, as best we can get them, and have them fight it out.
JON STEWART: No, no, no, no, that would be great. To do a debate would be great. But that’s like saying pro wrestling is a show about athletic competition.

(LAUGHTER)

TUCKER CARLSON: Jon, Jon, Jon, I’m sorry. I think you’re a good comedian. I think your lectures are boring.
STEWART: Yes.
CARLSON: Let me ask you a question on the news.
STEWART: How old are you?
CARLSON: Thirty-five.
STEWART: And you wear a bow tie.

(LAUGHTER)
(APPLAUSE)

CARLSON: Yes, I do. I do.
STEWART: So this is…
CARLSON: I know. I know. I know. You’re a…

(CROSSTALK)

STEWART: So this is theater.
CARLSON: Now, let me just…

(CROSSTALK)

CARLSON: Now, come on.
STEWART: Now, listen, I’m not suggesting that you’re not a smart guy, because those are not easy to tie.
CARLSON: They’re difficult.

(LAUGHTER)

STEWART: But the thing is that this — you’re doing theater, when you should be doing debate, which would be great.

In 2006 Carlson made the decision to ditch the anachronistic neckwear:

Well, if you watched this show before you may have noticed that I look different tonight.  I‘m not wearing a bow-tie.  This is odd for me.  I have worn a bow-tie on television every night for the past six years and for 15 years off air before that, since I was in 10^th grade.

I like bow-ties, and I certainly spent a lot of time defending them.

But from now on I‘m going without: no ties at all.

I didn‘t lose a bet.  It is not a political statement.  I didn‘t ditch the bow-tie in protest or in solidarity with any oppressed group.  It‘s not a ratings ploy but decided.  I just decided I wanted to give my neck a break.  A little change is good once in awhile, and I feel better already.

Carlson’s 2006 decision to part with neck wear he wore to make himself special as a teenager was overdue, but thank goodness he did it before David Sedaris came out with his 2008 book When You Are Engulfed in Flames.  After wearing a bow tie all across the country and getting various reactions, he figured out the problem:

It’s a pretty sorry world when wearing a bow tie amounts to being “out there.”  I’m just not sure which is worse, the people who consider it out there that someone’s wearing a bow tie, or the person who thinks he’s out there for wearing it. [....]

It was my friend Frank, a writer in San Francisco, who finally set me straight.  When asked about my new look he put down his fork and stared at me for a few moments.  “A bow tie announces to the world that you can no longer get an erection.”

And that is exactly what a bow tie says.  Not that you’re powerless, but that you’re impotent.  People offer to take you home not because you’re sexy but because you’re sex-less, a neutered cat in need of a good stiff cuddle.

“Now, the far-left websites fear greatly the vicious guy Jesse Watters.”  – Bill O’Reilly, April 3, 2009.

Feeling scared?  Then relieve your anxiety by Ambush interviewing Jesse Watters wherever you see him.  If you must, wait for him outside of his home, favorite restaurants or outside of Fox News headquarters on 6th Avenue in New York.  And if you Ambush him on an Ambush, you win $100 $200.   If you are being Ambushed and Ambush Jesse Watters back, you still get the money.

Do it the way Jesse does. Here’s a Crooks and Liars video to learn how:

O’Reilly will do anything for ratings, which is why David Letterman called him a “goon.”  It’s not just that O’Reilly blamed the rape-murder of 18 year old Jennifer Moore on the way that she dressed.   It’s that he’s a hypocrite, as Jon Stewart pointed out after Bill O’Reilly criticized the paparazzi (yes, who suck) for invading the privacy of celebrities just to get a photograph.   That’s exactly what O’Reilly and his sicko psycho stalker Jesse Watters do.  Instead of interrupting Tom Brady and Gisele Bundchen’s lives, Watters and O’Reilly focus on bloggers, editors, journalists and judges who are at the grocery store or on weekend getaways. Read what others have to say about these two:

If you see Jesse Watters at an event, such as the one at Brown University above, or on an Ambush, Ambush him back relentlessly. Photograph him non-stop. Credit: Oliver Schulze

“Jesse can bring his camera crew anywhere he wants and ask tough questions too, but what’s despicable about his tactics is that he shows up on their private property unannounced or (worse yet) on the private weekend getaways, after stalking them. That’s uncool and out of line and that’s what’s objectionable.” – John Amato, Crooks and Liars

“Amanda Terkel wrote something saying Bill O’Reilly shouldn’t insinuate that girls who drink and wear halter tops had that rape coming, because they are dirty, dirty girls. Who would write such a thing except an anti-American whore? Bill O’Reilly sent his psycho stalker producer, Jesse Watters, to find out.” -Hamilton Nolan, Gawker.

“This weekend, while on vacation, I was ambushed by O’Reilly’s top hit man, producer Jesse Watters, who accosted me on the street and told me that because I highlighted O’Reilly’s comments, I was causing ‘pain and suffering’ to rape victims and their families. He of course offered no proof to back up this claim, instead choosing to shout questions at me.” Amanda Terkel, Think Progress.

What if whenever Jesse Watters ventured on the street, people were waiting to "ambush" him?

“I think my favorite part about ‘The Factor’ is that they have no trouble reconciling their defense of celebrities’ right to privacy with their intimidation of everyone else.”  Jon Stewart, The Daily Show.

“Where’s Jesse Watters?  Find him. Stalk him. Bombard him. You get what you give.” Lawchick, Haikuku.com

Ambush interview Jesse Watters.  Keep an eye out for him on the street no matter the town you live in, because he might just be on an ‘Ambush’.   If you ‘Ambush’ Watters on an ‘Ambush’, Shankblog is offering a  $100 $200 gift certificate to the store of your choosing, and we will post your video here.

Ambush him about anything.  About his stalking.  His love life.  Why he styles his hair like a seventeen year-old boy.  Anything that you want to know about Jesse Watters, grab your camera phone, walk up to him and Ambush interview him. 

UPDATE 4/6 – a loyal reader has just doubled the Ambush Jesse Watters bounty.  It is now $200.

Kristen Schaal is one of the funniest women on television, as Esquire magazine pointed out in their February issue.  However, in November of 2008, the magazine profiled the women of Flight of the Conchords and strangely left out Schaal.  “Last time I checked,” said Schaal to the magazine, “I own the only pair of recurring tits on that show.  Maybe Esquire assumed I’m too professional to pose in my underwear and stare quizzically in the camera, but it is sorely mistaken.  I will do that shit.”  Schaal then went on to describe how, if she had been included in the November photo shoot, it would have gone.  A few highlights:

11:30 a.m. Arrive at the studio breathless and excited, in my cleanest underwear.  Greet the photographer with an enthusiastic hug that tells him I trust him.

12:03 p.m. I request Tori Amos be blasted at full volume.  After a few glasses of Scotch and a cry, I’m ready.

7:33 p.m. I decide to have my boobs surgically switched.  It’ll basically look the same but register on a subconscious level.

7:41 p.m. The photographer is crying.  Blanchard was never this much trouble.

Check out Schaal on the Daily Show discussing the media narrative about “cougars” -  older women who pursue relationships with younger men.

This blog tries to stay away from politics, but sometimes ideas are put forth that truly show the difference in how American liberals and conservatives differ in economic thinking, and the contrast is stark and dark.   I have been politically active since 1988, and at least since that time it has been de rigeur in the United States to proclaim, “I’m a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal.”   If you are one of the people who say that, then this blog post is aimed at you.  Never mind that the last eight years has brought the global economy into a depression; instead, focus on one question that delves at the root of the difference in ideology:  Who drives the economy?  Is it the rich, or is it the working- and middle-class?  I answer below.

I am asking my readers to consider that question because it goes to the heart of our economic problems, and because, readers, you are not the ones who will be helped out by any stimulus plan currently under consideration.  I explain why below.

Recently, I wrote about Jon Stewart of The Daily Show raising a proposal that nobody in Washington is taking seriously: alleviate the debt burdens of working- and middle-class Americans via a stimulus package that pays down some of their debt.  Here is how it would operate:

1. Create a program to pay down debt of working- and middle-class Americans who meet particular criteria.  This is not in the form of a stimulus check – the money would go directly to the financial institutions.
2. By paying down debt of Americans, we are shoring up the liquidity of banks, but we are also improving the economic well-being of many of the consumers who are the engines of economic stimulation.  We would be hitting two birds with one stone.
3. With the banks in better shape, and average Americans in better shape, the economy would experience far greater stimulus than just handing tax cuts and money hand-over-fist to the same institutions who have encouraged us to take on the debt they hold, and that is endangering everyone’s financial well-being.

It is the simplest and most effective idea for stimulus that has been discussed in the public sphere.  And it won’t happen.  Why?  Because Americans have been sold on this idea that the only ones who matter in this economy are the corporations and the rich.  You know this terminology: Supply-side economics.  It’s also called “Trickle-down” – give the rich more money, and it will eventually trickle down to the masses.

In response, Jon Stewart used the phrase “Trickle-up economics” to describe his idea of benefiting everyone with stimulus – the two birds with one stone idea.  It has long been discussed that working- and working-class families who have voted for Republicans have voted against their own self-interests.  If you have doubted this as “class warfare” claptrap, allow Michael J. Hurd of gaycation destination Rehoboth Beach, Delaware to spell it out to you:  working- and middle-class America, you don’t matter in this economy.

Hurd wrote a letter to respected conservative daily newspaper The Washington Times that they found such an eloquent statement of conservative fiscal philosophy that they printed it:

Mr. Hurd spells it out to all the Joe the Plumbers:  you don’t matter.  Republicans back this idea up with policy, studies show, by making the rich richer.  Thus, over the last eight years the gap between rich and poor has become a chasm.

Who drives the economy?

So who drives the economy?  Is it the rich or the middle class?  The answer is both, and it is Washington’s fundamental inability to see that the economic well-being of the working- and middle-class is integral to the success of our country that has gotten us into this mess.  The Republicans win elections with the votes of people like Joe Wurzelbacher, who in 2006 made an income of $40,000 but who couldn’t pay his debts to taxes or his hospital bills in 2007.

Wurzelbacher was made famous because he is afraid of redistributing the wealth of the country to…people like himself.  That is a respectable philosophical position.  Until you realize it is typically only argued when the money might go to average Americans, as opposed to the rich in the form of tax cuts and bailouts.

Look at last year’s $700 billion TARP bailout.  What happened to the money?  We are now told, just today, that we overpaid the banks for their assets.  We’re being told we were misled by Henry Paulson, Bush’s Treasury Secretary.  We hear stories about Merrill Lynch, which received $10billion tax dollars, buying Merrill CEO John Thain a $35,000 “commode on legs” and a $37 million apartment; Bank of America, which received $45 billion in bailout money and is still on the brink of collapse, blew $10 million on a “carnival-like” SuperBowl party.  On top of it, Wall Street dished out $20 billion in bonuses for last year, the 6th highest in history.

For the last eight years the Republican party has told Americans to spend their money (er, credit) to save the economy from a recession, even as they denied we were in one.  Now many of us are so deeply in debt at the urging of our leaders, that many families are on the verge of financial disaster if they are not there already.

But who gets the money?  The banks.   They keep your debt, and so do you, but they also now get your tax money.  When they are alive-and-kicking again after they were saved from their foolish and dangerous business practices, you’ll still be paying off that debt.

Adopt the Jon Stewart “Trickle-up” economic stimulus plan

Now that the entire economy, from the Joe the Plumbers to the Banks of America, is shattered by the Republicans sucking out money from the working- and middle-class (money that in the form of debt went to the banks), the banks are the ones receiving more of working- and middle-class money via federal tax dollars.

I started a Facebook group to demand implementation of the Jon Stewart stimulus plan to pay down the debt of Americans through the banks.  Please join it.  Listen to Stewart explain the idea, and listen to Republican supply-sider Lawrence Lindsey agree it would work.  We are not talking the stupidity of the the Bush stimulus checks, but real debt reduction.

With any debt reduction should be a mandatory credit reduction for those accepting the help.  If a person needs the help, he or she should not have had that much credit to begin with.  In turn, we will increase the liquidity of the banks.   Finally, end the sinful usury of astronomically high credit card interest rates that the banks are using to rape Americans pocketbooks.

Both Bob Herbert and Frank Rich have written eloquent, powerful columns about how we must stop listening to the old Republican ideas.  The first step is to adopt a stimulus package that reduces the average American’s debt burden while at the same time fixing the liquidity of our banks, which is threatened by that very debt.

It’s time for trickle-up economics.

On Tuesday, January 27, Gwen Ifill appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, where Stewart proposed a simple economic stimulus plan that nobody in Washington D.C. is talking about: bail out debt-laden workers. By getting working people out of debt, the money will then go to the banks that are ailing AND free up the incomes of the working- and middle-class.

Gwen Ifill ignored the idea, but Stewart would not let the simple genius of the idea go.

On Monday, February 2, Stewart had on his program Lawrence Lindsey, Director of the National Economic Council (2001-2002), and the Assistant to the President on Economic Policy for George W. Bush. Once again, Stewart raised the idea. Lindsey agreed with Stewart (watch):

Jon Stewart explains his economic stimulus plan to Lawrence Lindsey

Everyone in Washington is talking about bailing out banks, and the Bush Administration blindly handed over hundreds of billions to the banks, who then in the form of bonuses handed it to the people who ruined the global economy – Wall Street bankers.

Unfortunately, working people do not have lobbyists in Washington like Wall Street does. But we have Facebook. And we are here to DEMAND the implementation of the Jon Stewart Economic Plan:

1. Create a stimulus package that will bail the working class out of debt.
2. The money will go to the financial industry via workers paying off their debt.
3. This will increase the banks liquidity.
4. People, free from their debt, will have more money to invest in the economy.

The idea is so obvious, that even supply-sider Lawrence Lindsey agreed it would work.

Read more on Trickle-up economics.

Join the Facebook Group:

Join the Facebook group to demand the Jon Stewart Economic Plan by clicking the image

Here’s her greatest hits (in case you forgot):

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url(‘http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png’) !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}